Nearly three weeks after the video of
cows being abused at Hallmark Meat was made public
(see: http://tinyurl.com/2kp6sa),
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced
that the company was voluntarily recalling 143,383,823
pounds of beef - the largest ever recall of meat.
The amount comprises all beef produced by the company
over the past two years. The USDA determined that,
at times during that period, Hallmark failed to have
cattle who became non-ambulatory after passing initial
inspection reinspected (details at: http://tinyurl.com/yvz7gu),
as is required. Non-ambulatory cattle are more suspect
of having bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE, “mad
cow disease”), and meat from them is more likely
to be contaminated with E. coli or Salmonella.

The recalled beef is to be destroyed
(photos at: http://tinyurl.com/2u25gg),
although it is believed that most of it has already
been consumed (breakdown at: http://tinyurl.com/3ycp7n).
There are no plans to test any of the recalled beef.
The amount of potentially “adulterated”
meat may actually exceed a billion pounds since the
Hallmark beef may well have been mixed with other
meat. Industry is urging the USDA to not expand the
recall: http://tinyurl.com/2l7mh2.

2.
HEALTH CONCERNS & TRADE TROUBLE

The USDA is stressing that the Class
II recall signifies only a remote possibility that
the meat would cause adverse health effects, and that
no illness from it has been reported. (Note: The incubation
period for the human form of BSE is up to 30 years.)
Hallmark’s association with the National School
Lunch Program (see: http://tinyurl.com/2kp6sa)
prompted the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
to “immediately bombard school boards with educational
information reassuring them about the safety of beef.”
Industry and the government are particularly concerned
about the refusal of U.S. beef by some foreign markets
(see: http://tinyurl.com/35r5o7
and http://tinyurl.com/3dv3rq)
and they are attempting to assure them that the risk
of BSE from U.S. meat is low.

3.
THE ACCUSED

Police identified 11 instances of alleged
illegal activity in the HSUS video. Two fired Hallmark
employees (see: http://tinyurl.com/yoa5s7)
have been charged. Daniel Navarro, the former pen
manager, faces up to 8 years and 8 months in prison
if convicted of 5 felony and 3 misdemeanor counts
of animal cruelty. (It is reportedly the first time
felony charges have been brought for cruelty to animals
at a slaughterplant.) His former assistant, Luis Sanchez,
faces up to 3 years in prison for 3 misdemeanor counts
of using equipment to move animals.

Navarro told police that a former Hallmark
owner instructed him to use the violent techniques
to move cows. (The HSUS investigator reports having
been told during his orientation to immediately euthanize
non-ambulatory cattle.) Navarro seemed knowledgeable
of humane regulations, and attempted to deflect blame
to Sanchez. Sanchez admitted having known his actions
were illegal but claimed to have been following orders.
He is being held without bail due to his status as
an illegal immigrant (see also: http://tinyurl.com/3csmu8).
Additional charges could yet be lodged against other
employees or the company officials. Details of the
covert investigation can be found at: http://tinyurl.com/2wd4go
and http://tinyurl.com/2u25gg.

4.
INSPECTION CRITICIZED

Initially, both industry and the USDA
said the matter was an isolated incidence. HSUS expressed
skepticism of that, claiming it had randomly picked
Hallmark. The USDA subsequently announced it will
be increasing observation of cattle in the 900 slaughterplants
that handle them to determine if the abuse was an
aberration. A 2006 audit by the USDA’s Office
of Inspector General showed that the USDA’s
“Food Safety Inspection Service is easy to bypass
and was failing to screen potentially sick cattle
long before this week's beef recall,” notes
a Los Angeles Times article. "I think the real
story is that the entire story is embarrassing to
USDA and highlights an essential flaw in our inspection
system,” said Craig Hedberg, a food safety expert
at the University of Minnesota. The same L.A. Times
article details how a shortage of federal inspectors
is enabling slaughterplant workers to evade oversight:
http://tinyurl.com/3d7wpn
"The failure of the inspection program to stop
the company's egregious behavior is just another sign
of how USDA's thousands of meat inspectors are locked
into a rigid, antiquated form of inspection that is
not filling the bill on either food safety or animal
welfare," stated Mike Taylor, a former USDA food-safety
official.

5.
BLAME AND PREVIOUS ABUSE

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer
accused HSUS of being partly responsible for the magnitude
of the recall. "For four months they sat on that
information," he said, referring to the video
evidence. HSUS reiterated that it was local authorities
who had requested a delay in releasing the information
after having received the video on December 19th.
Explaining why they had presented the evidence to
local authorities, HSUS head Wayne Pacelle remarked
"we have seen the USDA time and time again not
take action."

Previously, the USDA was repeatedly informed of cows
being abused at Hallmark. Two local humane organizations
investigated 13 cases there between 1996 and 2004,
11 of which were substantiated. The USDA was notified
by them, twice in writing and once verbally, in 1996
and 1997, of possible regulatory violations regarding
Hallmark’s treatment of non-ambulatory cows.
A letter, dated December 16, 1997, from one of the
organizations, detailed conditions to which the then-owners
of Hallmark had agreed. Included was that any non-ambulatory
cow in distress was to be reported to the USDA vet
or inspector for immediate euthanasia. Copied to the
USDA, it concluded: "We all know that continued
mishandling of downers is unethical and will only
lead to further complaints from the public and possibly
interference from the media."

6.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTION

Congressional hearings have been scheduled
to examine inspection failures and related matters.
USDA Secretary Schafer is waiting for the results
of the USDA’s investigation before recommending
any policy changes. Legislators and others are calling
into question the USDA’s dual role of promoting
and regulating agriculture. One critic noted: “…a
growing problem of sweetheart relationships between
those regulators working in the government who then
move into industry and those working in the industry
who then move to government (http://tinyurl.com/2t228s).
Calls are being renewed for a single government agency
to take over food safety responsibilities. Meanwhile,
the USDA is considering ways it might provide financial
support for companies adversely affected by the recall.